- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 03:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comparison of CRT, LCD, Plasma, and OLED ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is all WP:OR and WP:SYNTH CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep has plenty of sources. There
exist
similar
articles so it's not
wp:or or
wp:synth.
Dcfc1988 (
talk)
23:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Because other articles exist" is never a reason to keep an article, those articles may be just as inappropriate, or as in this case, much more specific and therefore cite-able. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 15:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are not valid reasons to delete. ~ KvnG 14:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah they are.
CombatWombat42 (
talk)
15:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you are you referring to
WP:DEL-REASON #6, it is not sufficient to simply show that there is
WP:OR in the article. My reading is that you must show that it is not possible to improve the article to remove it. This is clearly not the case as there are many quality comparison sources already cited. ~
KvnG
17:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see none of the cited comparisons as being particularly valid or useful. There exist counter examples to every comparison in there. All this chart does is say "for most COTS screens these things usually hold true" This kind of chart belongs at anandtech or tom's hardware, not on an encyclopedia as it requires us to make a judgment (not citeable) as to what monitors are included in "COTS" and what "usually" means. If you wanted it to be encyclopedic you should compare how the various technologies work and that would not be a chart, but a textual analysts (something each article does on its own already). CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you are you referring to
WP:DEL-REASON #6, it is not sufficient to simply show that there is
WP:OR in the article. My reading is that you must show that it is not possible to improve the article to remove it. This is clearly not the case as there are many quality comparison sources already cited. ~
KvnG
17:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The info is not fully covered by the sources, so it is own research contrary to the content guidelines. The Banner talk 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a perfectly valid and useful comparison. An excellent support article for the Comparison of display technology with much better layout and more information. I would like to see more sourcing to support factual statements made here. And I think DLP should be added to the chart, though the current title is self limiting and while this is under attack, it shouldn't be changed. After we Keep this, it should be added, by me if nobody else does it. Trackinfo ( talk) 09:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 13:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep While it is not great article, it does have notable sources to keep it around. It does need some editing to be more neutral and not subjective. Frmorrison ( talk) 20:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Frmorrison. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 07:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 03:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comparison of CRT, LCD, Plasma, and OLED ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is all WP:OR and WP:SYNTH CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep has plenty of sources. There
exist
similar
articles so it's not
wp:or or
wp:synth.
Dcfc1988 (
talk)
23:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Because other articles exist" is never a reason to keep an article, those articles may be just as inappropriate, or as in this case, much more specific and therefore cite-able. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 15:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are not valid reasons to delete. ~ KvnG 14:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah they are.
CombatWombat42 (
talk)
15:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you are you referring to
WP:DEL-REASON #6, it is not sufficient to simply show that there is
WP:OR in the article. My reading is that you must show that it is not possible to improve the article to remove it. This is clearly not the case as there are many quality comparison sources already cited. ~
KvnG
17:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see none of the cited comparisons as being particularly valid or useful. There exist counter examples to every comparison in there. All this chart does is say "for most COTS screens these things usually hold true" This kind of chart belongs at anandtech or tom's hardware, not on an encyclopedia as it requires us to make a judgment (not citeable) as to what monitors are included in "COTS" and what "usually" means. If you wanted it to be encyclopedic you should compare how the various technologies work and that would not be a chart, but a textual analysts (something each article does on its own already). CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you are you referring to
WP:DEL-REASON #6, it is not sufficient to simply show that there is
WP:OR in the article. My reading is that you must show that it is not possible to improve the article to remove it. This is clearly not the case as there are many quality comparison sources already cited. ~
KvnG
17:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The info is not fully covered by the sources, so it is own research contrary to the content guidelines. The Banner talk 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a perfectly valid and useful comparison. An excellent support article for the Comparison of display technology with much better layout and more information. I would like to see more sourcing to support factual statements made here. And I think DLP should be added to the chart, though the current title is self limiting and while this is under attack, it shouldn't be changed. After we Keep this, it should be added, by me if nobody else does it. Trackinfo ( talk) 09:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 13:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep While it is not great article, it does have notable sources to keep it around. It does need some editing to be more neutral and not subjective. Frmorrison ( talk) 20:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Frmorrison. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 07:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.